The Honor able S andr a Day O’ Conno r, As s oc i at e J us t i c e of  the Uni t ed St at es Supr em e Cour t ( Ret
. ) , s i t t i ng b y des i gna t i on p u rs u a n t to 28 U .S.C . § 2 9 4 (a ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3179 L IN X I NG J I ANG, P etitio ner, v . E RIC H . H OLDER, A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 78-745- 524
A RGUED M AY 18, 2010

— D ECIDED M AR CH 18, 2011

B efore O’C ON NO R , A ss ociateJust ice, a nd K A N NE , a nd  R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T he Bo a r d o fI mm i gr at i o n Appeal s s ought to r etur n Lin Xi ng J i ang t o Ch i na after2 N o. 09

- 3179 she a rr i ved on U
. S. so il w ithout properper m i ssi on t o e n t e r . Aft e r h e r i n i t i a l r e q u e s t f o r a s y l u m wa s de ni e d, and the t i m e for filing a peti ti on f orr evi ew o r a m oti on to re open the proce edi ngs had ru n , Jia ng fi l ed a m oti on to re open the proceed ings w i th the Boar d, al l eging a c h an ge of cir c u m st an c es in C h in a s u p p or te d h er cla im f o r r el i ef

. The Bo ar d f o un d th at th e ev i den ce s he s o ug ht to offerei therwas avai l abl e o r coul d have be en di scove re d orpre sente d at the f or m erhear i ng and d en i ed the m oti on t o re open. J i ang pet i ti oned th is c ourtto r e v i e w th e o r d e r o fth e B o a r d

. We a ffi r m.
I. J i an g, a na ti ve a nd c i ti ze n o fChi na , e ntered S t. J o hn, Uni te d S ta te s Vi r g i n I sl an ds, on S ept embe r 2 2, 2 00 0. The I m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zati on S er vi ce, now the Depart

m en t of Hom el and Secur i ty, char ged J i ang a s be i ng an a l i e n pr e s e nti n the Uni t ed St a t e s wi tho utb e i nga dm i tte d orparo l ed an d bega n re m ova l pro ceedi ngs. J i ang fi l ed f oras yl um , c l ai m i ng tha t s he had bee n f or ced t o ab o r ta pr e g na nc y b y the Ch i ne s e g o v e r nme nt
. On Decem ber20 , 20 02, J i an g appeared be f or e a n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge w ho co ncl ud ed that her sto rywas not cr edibl e an d d eni ed he r a ppl i ca ti o n f o r a sy l um , wi th

ho l di ng o f r emov al, an d pr o te ct i o n unde r th e C onven ti o n Ag a i n s tT o r t u r e . ( R
. 1 4 6

- 1 5 8 )
. J i a n ga p p e a l e d t he i m m i g r at i o n j udg e’ s dec i si o n t o the Bo ar d, whi ch, on M ar ch 18, 20 04, affi rm ed the d ec i si on without a n accom panyi ng o p in ion. ( R. 10 5)
. The st atuto ryni netyday deadl i ne f orappeal s pass ed w i thout w or d fr om J i ang.N o. 09

- 3179 3 Over f our yea rs l ate r, J i ang fi l ed a m oti on to re open her p ro ceedi ngs, cl ai m i ng tha t s he had new and m ate ri al evi dence notdi sco verable o r avai l abl e a t herf or m er he aring, an d thu s her u nt im ely pet it io n shou ld be p erm i tte d und erthe re gul ato ryexce pti on t o the t im e li m i ts for m ot ion s t o re op en ba se d on c h a n g ed co u n tr y c on d iti ons, ci ti ng 8 C.F.R
. § 1003
. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i )
. Fo r the fi rs t t i m e, J i ang a rgued that s he feare d p ersecuti on ba sed o n her Cath o l i c r e l i g i o n . S h e a l s o c i t e d a s n e w e v i d e n ce the f a c tth a ts i n c e th e t i me o fth e l a s th e a r i n g, wh e n s he w as pregnant with her first chi l d, she had g i ven bi rth to tw o children i n th e U nited States in viol ation of Ch ina’s f am i l y pl anni ng pol i ci es. J i ang info rm ed the Board that s he was bapti zed as a Catho l i c so o n a fte r b i r tha nd th atb o ths he a nd h er fam ily h av e c on tin u ed to p ra c t i c e C at h olic ism to th is day

— sh e in the U nited States, and her fam il y i n u nd ergr ound, unregi ste re d churches i n China. Jia ng al l ege s th athe r f ami l y a r r an g ed f o r he r t o leav e Chi na f o r the U ni ted S tat es so th at she c oul d conti nue to prac ti ce he r reli gion an d becau se th ey feared she cou ld n ot ad he re to Chi na ’ s r es tr i ct i ve po pul at i o n c o ntrolpo l i cy . J i an g ar gu ed thatci rcum sta nces had w or sened f orprac ti ci ng Cathol i cs in C h i na, and that shoul d the Un i ted St ate s r em ove herto China, she w oul d return to her f o r m erunde r g r o und Ca th o l i c ch ur cha nd r i skpe r se cuti on. Final l y, J i ang s tat ed that alth ou gh she had tol d her im m i gr ati on l aw yerthatshe had gro w n up in a Cat h olic f am i l y in China a nd was a pr acti ci ng Cathol i c, he di d not i ncl ud e a cl ai m f or r el i gi ous per secuti on i n heri ni ti al p e t i t i o n f o r a s y l u m.4 N o. 09

- 3179 The Board co ncl ud ed that J i ang had notsubm itted ade qua te ev i den ce to su ppo r t r eo pen i ng, an d th at the ar ti cl es and repor ts J i ang s ubm i tte d did not show that m em bers of un d ergrou nd chu rch es w ere in m o re d an ger than they had b een at the ti m e of her hear in g in 2002
. ( R. 3)
. The Boar d noted thatJ i ang di d not speci fi cal l y c l ai m i n herm oti on that herf or m erco unsel pr o vi ded ineffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns ela nd, i n a ny e v e n t, f a i l e d t o me e tth e r e q u i r e me n t s o fs u c h a c l a i m. ( R. 4)
. Final l y, the Board co ncl ud ed t h at J i ang di d not subm i t a new asyl um appli cati on a s i s r eq u i re d w hen f i lin g a m ot ion to reo p en . Idatn. 1. On A ugust 5 , 20 09, th e B oa rd d en ied Jian g’s m ot ion to reo p en . Id. Ji an g pet iti one d this cou rt forreview of th e B oard ’s dec i si o n de ny i ngthe mot i o n to r eo pen, a de ci si o n the Suprem e Cour t has h eld we have j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew . K u c a na v. Ho lder, 1 30 S
. Ct
. 8 27, 8 31 ( 20 10 )
. Our review , how ever, defers to the d ecis ion of th e B oard unle ss i t has abuse d i ts d i scr eti on, thati s, unl ess i t has m ade its d eci si on without r ati onalexpl anati on, departs f ro m es tabl i shed pol i ci es w ithout expla nati on, o r re sts o n a n i mp e r mi s s ib l e b a s i s s u c h a s i n v i d i o u s d i s c r i min a t i o n . See X ia o Jun Lia ng v. Ho lder, 62 6 F
. 3d 983, 98 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 10 ). For t h e re as on s s e t fort h be low , w e fin d it ha s no t, a nd thus de ny the pe ti ti o n.
II. Underthe I m m i g r at i o n and N at i o na l i tyAct, a n a sy l um see ke r ma y c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c ka fi na l o r de r o fr e mov al b y filin g a m ot ion to reo p en w it h t h e B oa rd , w h ich , inN o. 09

- 3179 5 its discretion, i t m ay gran t or de n y. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C. F. R. § 1003
. 2(a )
. A m oti on t o re open bas ed on changed co untry condi ti ons is exem pt fro m the usual ni ne ty
- days ta tu to r y de adl i ne f o r fi l i ng suc h mot i o ns so l o nga s th e ev i den ce o fthe c ha ng ed co ndi ti o ns “i s m ate ri aland was not avai l abl e a nd would not have been disc ove re d orpre sente d at the pre vi ous pr oc ee d in g.” 8 U .S.C .A . § 12 29 a(c )(7) (C )(ii); see also 8 C. F
. R. § 1 00 3.2 (c )(3) (ii); Zhao v. Gonzal es , 44 0 F
. 3d 405, 40 7 ( 7th C ir. 2005). The pe ti ti o ne r c o nc ede s th at th e e vi den ce s he prese nts “ i s t echn i cal l y no t new evi dence [ but] was not available at the initialhearing becau se he r at torney f ai l ed to pre sent i t, ” a nd t h at “ sh e di d not hav e a n opportunity t o prese nt al l herper secuti on cl ai m s.” ( Br i efo fPe ti ti o ne r a t 13 )
. Thi s ar g um en t, ho we ver, i s o ne claim i ng i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel, notchange d countr y c ondit i ons. A fteral l, acc or din g to J i ang, she has been a pra cti ci ng Cathol ic all of her l i fe, and the abuse o fCa th o l i cs b y the Chi ne se g o ve r nm ent w as wel l

- do cum ented wh en J i ang fi rs t a pp ear ed bef or e the i m m i gr ation cou rt i n 20 02. W ha t she arg u e s i s n ot tha t the i nform at i o n was no t av ai l able t o hera t th e ti m e o fthe hear i ng, b uttha t he r a tt o r ne y was i ne ffec ti ve f o r f ai l i ng to p re se n t it

— o r to i nf o r m he r th at a cl ai m of p er se cuti on ba sed o n herr el i gi on would be r el evant
. A syl um se eke rs hol d no S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o counsel

. To ure v. H o lder, 624 F.3d 422 , 430 (7th C ir. 2010). “[ N ] o sta tute orco nsti tuti onalpro vi si on e nti tl es an al i en wh o has b ee n d eni ed effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel6 N o. 09

- 3179

InM a t t e ro

f Compe a n ( Compe a n I) , 2 4 I
. & N. De c . 7 1 0 ( AG 1 20 09 ) , the At t or ne y G en eral c onc l uded thatthe “Co ns t i t ut i on does no tc onfera c ons t i t ut i ona l r i ghtt o e ffec t i ve ass istanc e of (co n tin u ed ...) i n . . . he r r emov alpr o ce edingt o re o penthe pr o ce eding on the bas i s o fthatdeni al

. ” Je z i e r s k i v. M uk a sey, 54 3 F
. 3d 886 , 889 (7th C ir. 2008) (ci tations om itted ) ce r t
. de ni e d, 12 9 S. Ct. 16 62 ( 2009 )
. Thi s Ci rcui t has rec og ni zed, neve rthel es s , tha tthe de ni a l o fe ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e o fc o un s e l may und ercer tain ci rcum sta nces vi ol ate the du e pr oce ss gu ar an te e of th e Fift h A m en d m en t. To ure, 624 F. 3d at 430. The Bo ar d l ong a go re co g ni ze d thi s po te nt i alf o r a due pr o ce ss v i o l at i o n in M at t e rof Lo z ada , 19 I
. & N
. Dec. 63 7, 63 8 ( BI A 19 88 ) ( “Ine ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o uns eli n a d ep or ta tio n p ro c ee d in g i s a d en ial of d u e p ro c es s o n ly i fthe p ro c eedi ng was so fund am ental l y unf ai r that th e a lien w a s p re ve n te d from rea so n ab ly p re se n tin g h is case . ”)
. A nd i n thi s s am e ca se, t he Boar d hel d that a n asy l um se eke r m ust do th re e thi ngs t o ra i se an i neffecti venes s cl ai m : ( 1) subm i t a n affi davi t e stabl i shi ng tha t sh e had an agr eem ent with counselto r epres ent he r and detai l i ng i ts ter m s; ( 2) pre sent evi de n c e th at she has giv en n ot ice to h er co u n se l of th e in effe c tiv en es s c laim an d a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o r es po nd t o the a l l eg at i o ns , a nd i nc l ude a ny resp onse s he ha s r ec ei ve d; a nd ( 3) i fthe att or n ey vi ol ate d his ethi calo r l ega l o bl i gat i ons, sho w that sh e has fi l ed a c om pla i nt with the g ove rni ng di sci plinaryautho ri ti es orexpl ai n w hy she has not d on e s o. M a tte rof

Lo zada , 1 9 I
. & N. De c . a t 6 3 9
. W e ha v e s us- 1N o. 09

- 3179 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 c ouns eli n r em oval pr oc eedin gs , ” e i the r thr ough the Fi fth o r S ix th A m en d m en ts, th u s o v er ru lin g , in p a rt, M at t erof Loza da
. Id
. at 714
. Lat erthatye ar, the At t or ne y Gene ra l vac at ed the C ompean Id e c isi o n, M at t erof C ompean ( C om p ea n II) , 2 5 I
. & N. D ec. 1 ( A G 2009), an d ordered the E xec utive O ffic e of I m m igrati on R eview to rei nst ate use ofthe Lozada s t anda rds pen di ng a co m p re h en siv e re v ie w o f t h e ru le s in th is a re a . Id. at2- 3. I n a ny ev en t, the B oa rd ad jud icated J ian g ’ s ineffectiv e assistan ce claim underthe l aw thate xi s t ed pr i or t o the dec i s i on i n Compe a n I
. ta in ed rep ea te d ly th e v alid ity of th es e re q u i r e m en ts
. See G ha ffa r v. M uk a sey, 551 F.3d 651 , 656 (7th C ir. 2008); Jezi e rs ki, 54 3 F
. 3d at 889; S t r o ev . INS , 25 6 F
. 3d 498, 50 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. J i ang c i tes se ver alN i nth Cir cui t ca se s fo r the pr oposit i on that f ai l ure to com plywith the Lozad a re q u ire m en ts i s n otfat al t o a m ot ion to reo p en , bu t t h is Cir cui t, however, has stated that“s ati sfyi ng the r equi re m en ts of Lozad a i s a ne ce ss ar y c o nd i ti o n t o o bt aini ng r eop en i ngo n the b as i s o fi ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fc o unsel

. ” Jezi e rs ki, 5 43 F
. 3 d a t8 8 9
. E v e n i fi twe r e n o t, we cer tai nl y c oul d not s ay that the Bo ar d abused i ts disc re ti o n b y r equi r i ngs o m e co m pl i an ce wi th Lozad a , w he re J i a ng ha s f a i l e d t o s a t i s fy e v e n o ne o fthe Lozad a r equi re m ents orto ev en ar ti cul ate a speci fi c cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce. See P a tel v. G o nz a les , 49 6 F
. 3d 829, 83 1 ( 7th C ir. 2007). E ve n w er e w e t o c on st ru e Jia n g’s arg u m en t a s a cla im ofchange d condit i ons rath er then a cl ai m fori neffecti ve8 N o. 09

- 3179

ass i sta nce o fco unsel, J i ang fa il ed to dem onst ra te that ther e were m ate ri alchange s in the re l evantci rcum sta nces in C h in a. Jo seph v . H o lder, 57 9 F
. 3d 827, 83 3- 34 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ; 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( i i )
. A c h a n g e d c i r c u msta nce nee d not r each the l eve l o fa bro ad soc i alo r pol i ticalchange i n a c ountr y; a perso nal o r l oca l change m igh t s u ffice

. Jos e ph , 579 F.3d at 83 4. N everth eless, th ere mu s tb e e v i de nc e o fs o me ma t e r i a l c h a n g e d c i r c u msta nces. Cum ula ti ve evi dence thatthe condi ti ons asser ted i n the or i gi nal appli cati on per si ste d fa i l s t o m eet th is b u rd en . Zhao , 44 0 F
. 3d at 407. J i ang s ubm i tte d seve ra l i nter net ne w s r epor ts poste d i n 200 8 byan o rg ani zati on ca l l ed Chinaai d that recou nt ed i nc iden ts in w hich p r a cticing C ath oli cs w ere abu sed

. Th e B oard not e d t h at th e evide nc e in the record at the t i m e o fJ i ang’ s ini ti alhear i ng i nd i cate d that Chi na ha d a t er r ibl e human r i g ht s r ec o r d o fr el i g i o us pe r s e c ut i o n a g a i ns t u n a p p r o v e d r e l i g i o u s g r o u ps includ ing C ath oli cs. Th e B oard referenced th e 2000 U
. S. Dep ar tm ent o fS tat e Countr y Repor t on H um an Ri ghts Pract i ces in China ( 2000 CountryRepor t) , wh i ch i ncl ud ed evi dence thato ffi ci al s raze d orco nfi scat ed chu rc h es and pla ces ofworshi p, br oke up ser vi ces, hara sse d l eader s a nd adhere nts, atti m es fi ni ng , detaini ng, i m pri soni ng, beat i ng, and t or turing them

. ( R. 268) (20 00 Cou nt r y Re po r t)
. The Bo ar d a l so no te d tha t ac co r di ng to J i ang’ s own affi davi t, she and he r f am ily suffer ed re l i gi ous per secuti on bef or e she cam e to the Unite d Sta tes
. ( R. 4). A letterfro m J i ang’ s fri end that J i ang s ubm i tte d as e vi den ce o fc ha ng ed ci r cumst an ce s st at es th at, “ th e situat ion i n C hin a is stil l th e sam e as tim e [si c] you leftN o. 09

- 3179 9

A lthoug h the 2009 Cou ntry R eport w as not part ofthe rec ord 2 b el o w , w e stil l m a y ta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e o f it. S ee A yel e v. H ol der, 56 4 F .3d 862 , 87 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 09 ). A nd altho u g h C ou ntr y R ep or ts h a v e l im ite d u t i l ity in so m e c ir cu m sta n ce s, see G alin a v . I. N .S ., 21 3 F
. 3d 9 55 , 95 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00 ) , the y c an s er ve as on e us eful form o f com p ariso n in exam inin g cha ng es in co u ntr y con d itio n s. Id. Ch i na. ” ( R. 63 )
. The ar ti cl es and evi dence subm i tte d by Jian g m er el y s up portthe propos i ti on that the hum an r i g ht s ab us es present a t th e ti m e o fhe r o r i g i na l he ar i ng i n 200 2 co nti nue to thi s day. I nd eed , the Stat e D ep artm en t’s 2009 C ou nt ry Rep ort i nc l u d e s s i mi l a r r e p o r t s o f s u r v e i l l a n c e , h a r a s s me n t, a nd per se cut i o n o fCa tholi cs . Nev er th el es s, thi s m o str ec en t Country Reportm ay offera gl i m m er o fo pti m i sm f or pract i ci ng C athol i cs a s the r epor t no tes that“the di stinc ti o n b etwe en the o ffi ci alCa th o l i c Chur ch, whi chthe gov er nm ent c ontr ol l ed pol i ti cal l y, and the unregi ste re d C ath oli c C hu rch w as less distinc t tha n in th e pa s t
. U
. S. Dep t. Of St ate CountryRepor ts on Hu m an Ri ghts P ra c tic es in C h in a, 20 09
. In s om e o fficia l C at h olic 2 churches, cl er i cs l ed pray er s forthe Pope, and pic ture s ofthe Pope were displ aye d.” Id. N or c an J i an gr ely o n h erc l ai m tha t be ca us e sh e has had two child re n i n the U ni ted S tat es she wil l f ace perse cuti on i n China forvi ol ati ons oftha t c ountr y’ s o nech il d policy. Th at argu m en t has b e e n vetted i n th is court and rej ecte d. Se e Jos eph , 57 9 F
. 3d at 834. Che ng Che n v . G o nz a les , 49 8 F. 3d 758, 760 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Thi s i s no t t o say10 N o. 09

- 3179 that an appli cant foras yl um m ust sh ow s om e br oad soc i alo r pol i ti calal ter ation i n the countr y c ondit i ons, as opposed to a m or e p ersonalo r l oca l m odi fi cati on, but an appli cant cannot cl ai m change d c ountr y condi ti ons base d o n h ero w n action s i n the Uni te d S ta te s when th e co nd itio n s in th e c ou n tr y of o rig in h av e n otm a te ria lly c h an ge d

. Jos eph , 57 9 F
. 3d at 834
. J i an gha s off ered no evi dence thatthe popu l ati on c on tr oleff or ts and onechi l d pol i cy have m ate ri al l y c han ge d s i nce the date of her i ni ti alhear i ng. Fi nal l y, the Board i n a foo tnot e al so com m ented that J i ang f ai l ed to subm i t a new asy lu m ap p l i cati on w i th herm oti on t o re open, as i s r equi re d by i ts re gul atio n s. (R . 4). See 8 C.F
. R. § 1003
. 2( c) ( 1)
. The Board did not st at e th ati t den i ed th e pet i ti o n b as ed o n thi s f ai l i ng, b ut it w as w ith in it s d isc re tio n t o d o s o. See C o nti v . I. N .S., 78 0 F. 2d 698, 70 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85) ( “f ai l ure to c om plywith the pr oce du ra l r equi re m ents f or a val i d m oti on t o r eo pen alone i s no r m al l ys uffi ci en t to o ve r co m e th e conte nti on that the den ial ofsuch a m oti on was an abuse of d isc re tio n ”); see also P a tel , 49 6 F
. 3d at 831. I n herbr i efto thi s co urt, J i ang rais es seve ra l o ther ar g um en ts r eg ar di ngthe mer i ts o fhe r o r i g i na l a sy l um c lai m , n am ely th at sh e w ou ld su ffer p er se c u tio n if re turned t o Ch i na bec ause ofherco er ced abo rt i on, her o ppo si ti on to , a nd v i o l at i o ns o fChi na ’ s f ami l y pl anni ng p oli cy. Th ese argu m en ts, how ever, attack th e B oard ’s 2004 d ec i si o n whi chJ i an gc ho se no t to a ppea l a nd c an n otap p ea l atth is lat e d at e. See St onev. I
. N
. S. , 5 1 4 U
. S. 38 6, 40 5 (1 99 5); Ajo se v. G o nz a les , 40 8 F
. 3d 3 93 , 3 94- 95 ( 7thN o. 09

- 3179 11 Ci r . 2 00 5)
. The o nl y de ci sion be f o r e th i s co ur t i s th e Board’ s A ugust 5, 2009 deci si on denyi ng J i ang’s m oti on to reo p en . The Bo ar d di d no t ab us e i ts di scretion i n de ny i ng J i ang’ s m oti on t o re open the proce edi ngs. The peti ti on f or re vi ew i s there f or e D ENI ED .

3- 18- 11